When I was a very little girl I was extremely fond of my Donald Duck comic books. In fact, I remember that my first motivation to learn to read came when my mother was too busy to read a new Donald Duck to me, and I was longing to know what the story was about. The whole panoply of Disney characters seemed wholesome and child-friendly to me and most other people. Most of us have assumed that whatever was connected with Disney could be counted on to be valuable to children and families.
But apparently a corporation is a corporation, and corporations exist for their own benefit, not to do good. And while we might have sentimental reasons for wanting to exclude Disney from that generalization, the history of “Baby Einstein” tells us that we can’t make such an exception.
The problems began with the claim that “Baby Einstein” was not just potential entertainment for the very young child, but actually encouraged good cognitive development. This claim is simply not plausible within the context of what we know about early learning and development.
There’s no question that babies are fascinated by the world and eager to learn about it-- but on the other hand, there’s also no question that babies learn by active involvement rather than by passive exposure. Both educational and clinical work (like that of the late, great Stanley Greenspan) has focused on the importance of following babies’ lead and supporting the kind of learning they want to do at any given time. Infants may be soothed temporarily by passive exposure to “Baby Einstein” or similar stimulation, but this kind of experience doesn’t provide the developmental help that comes from active engagement.
In addition, young babies are most intrigued by and attentive to complicated experiences that involve social interactions as well as physical stimulation. That means that their most effective learning experiences result from play and affectionate interactions with adults. When a mother or father holds a baby, looks at him or her, makes exaggerated faces, talks or sings in an infant-directed way, and moves the baby around, these interesting synchronized activities are almost certain to catch a baby’s attention. Once caught, that attention guides the baby to learn a whole series of important things: how are facial expressions connected to voice tones or to speech rhythms? What sounds occur most often when a parent is speaking? Are there sounds people make (like sneezes) that come out of the mouth but have nothing to do with talking? What do grown-ups do when the baby looks at them, and what when he or she looks away?
These are all basic lessons in communicating with other people, and they probably cannot be learned except through active engagement with others. Passive exposure to a video is not a way to accomplish this kind of learning. It’s essential that these skills be learned, because they are the foundation of language (and therefore of reading), of emotional attachment and other relationships, and even of the capacity for empathy.
It’s implausible that “Baby Einstein” could foster these basic achievements of early learning. In addition to the implausibility of this idea, no one has offered any empirical research evidence to show that the program encourages early cognitive development. This is so clear that the Disney corporation some months ago offered refunds to parents who had expected cognitive effects for their baby and found that “Baby Einstein” did not provide them.
But the story is not over, according to a news report in the New York Times on July 1, 2010. Disney is displeased with criticism of “Baby Einstein”, and has made its displeasure felt by Dr. Alvin Poussaint and by Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Poussaint, a well-known psychiatrist, and Linn have both stated concerns with advertising for “Baby Einstein”. Poussaint and Linn have rented offices from the Judge Baker Children’s Center, a Boston children’s mental health organization. But it now transpires that pressure on the Judge Baker center was passed on to Poussaint and Linn, who were asked not to mention “Baby Einstein”. The situation has ended with Poussaint and Linn leaving their Judge Baker offices--- Poussaint returning to an office at Harvard Medical School, which one would hope is able to resist intimidation efforts.
The First Amendment is usually considered to protect commercial speech to some extent. It also protects criticism of commercial speech and of other material. A lawsuit against Poussaint and Linn would be unsuccessful, although potentially disastrously costly for them. But corporations with deep pockets have ways of influencing people without entering the courtroom, as we have noted. What can organizations that foster understanding of early development do to help in this battle? That remains to be seen, but we had better start to give it some thought.
Jean Mercer
No comments:
Post a Comment